Unfortunate for the Repubs that Trump appointed those conservatives on the Supreme Court. The progression is clear now, with Roe vs Wade overturned and members of the party jumping on a bandwagon of repression like that of the Taliban. Oh, wait, the Taliban are less restrictive than many Republicans, giving a woman 17 weeks to make up her mind.
The Grand Old Party needs to pull itself out of the middle ages.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 09:39#7563670 likes
We need a global movement to end party politics, as it is a bad system.
Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent. Any second chamber should be an elected citizen's chamber, representing social groups such as youth, the elderly, the disabled, the military, the police, medical, science etc.
Policies, laws should be based on bills introduced by any member of the government chamber and then should be debated by its members. Any law/government act, must be ratified by a majority from the second chamber.
We need a different politics or horrors like Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro, etc will always return to the main stage from time to time
With how the youth vote turned out to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, I hope that this will cause the Republicans to reevaluate their stances on issues such as climate change so as to appeal to the increasing concerns of that demographic. I mean I don't think it will happen (they're already calling for raising the age limit for voting), but one can hope.
Democrats holding the Senate is a huge win for them and a loss for Republicans.
I think finally the GOP can come back to it's senses. Trump is a losing card.
In fact, the Democrats can hope that the GOP takes Trump to be their candidate in the Presidential elections: nothing else would mobilize the Dems better and alienate many that otherwise would vote for a Republican candidate.
We need a global movement to end party politics, as it is a bad system.
Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent.
That doesn't even logically work when voting in any parliamentary system is based on a majority. It is totally rational to make coalitions. In order to get what is important for you to be pushed through, you have to make then packs with other who have their agenda. Hence the party system basically will emerge, even if they aren't called political parties.
Secondly, even on the local level the political divide is there among the people: some want to use tax money to be spent of issues while others don't and just want lower taxes. Some want more collective decision making and others individual freedoms. It doesn't go away on the local level, you know.
I think the US would need more political parties and coalition governments and then root out it's corruption. But if people aren't aware of the domination of the whole system by the two parties, then there isn't going to be change.
I'm hoping the cause of this is seen clearly as the unelectability of Trump candidates so that the Trump era can once and for all come to an end.
Is there a risk that the end of Trump might bring with it more astute and cunning demagoguery by people like Ron DeSantis who might actually know what they are doing?
That doesn't even logically work when voting in any parliamentary system is based on a majority. It is totally rational to make coalitions. In order to get what is important for you to be pushed through, you have to make then packs with other who have their agenda. Hence the party system basically will emerge, even if they aren't called political parties.
I disagree, as any pacts or groupings based on common cause would be terminated at every new election. No establishment of governmental groups such as the tory '1922 committee' in the UK, would be allowed to continue. New groups could be formed after each election, and it would probably be wise to limit the number of times any individual could be elected to become a member of the first chamber.
Almost three-quarters of women, it's been estimated, voted for the Democrats in the midterm elections. Murica ain't "Gilead" yet, bubba. :up:
And maybe this electoral gift will keep on giving:
Sen. Warnock wins re-election handily in run-off on December 6th
House of Reps GOP [s]219[/s] 222, Dems [s]216[/s] 212
Rep. Kevin McCarthy fails to get 218 votes needed to become Speaker of the House on January 3rd because several or more
"Freedom Caucus" Trumpstains don't vote for him ... Maybe an outside, non-member of Congress (e.g. retired federal Judge Michael Luttig :yikes:) will be elected Speaker by mostly GOP and several conservative Dems (which could very much limit the obstructive Trumpy shenanigans next year)
Sen. "Moscow Mitch" MCConnell loses Senate Minority Leader title (unlikely, but one can still hope)
Senate Dems form Senate Select Cmte on January 6th Insurrection to pick up where House Select Cmte will leave off after the GOP takes over in the House
with 2022 midterm elections concluded, by mid-December the DoJ indicts Individual-1 (at least for Obstruction of Justice, maybe also for Espionage) and/or Fulton County, GA district attorney begins indicting 2020 election interference co-conspirators (e.g. Guiliani, Meadows, fake electors, et al)
We need a global movement to end party politics, as it is a bad system.
Politics is always ugly and I think you'll always get bad people grasping for power. Here in New England many municipalities have direct democracy - town meetings where either all adult residents or elected local representatives vote. It works reasonably well for small towns, but breaks down the larger the group gets. I think there have to be established and enduring institutions that provide vision and continuity. As badly as it sometimes seems to be working, I can't think of a better mechanism than some sort of party system.
As for the US midterm election, some are saying this will be the beginning of the end of the 30+ year Republican rampage against governance. I hope that's true.
Reply to Mikie It's a mistake to think that conservatives are all better now, having gotten Trump out of their system.
Conservative interests and politics have been a negative and enduring drag on American life for a long time. Whether they are called "republican" or "democrat" doesn't matter that much. Conservatives resisted legislation to establish Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, social welfare programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and more. Southern Democrats (DBA conservatives) imposed race-based limitations on progressive programs such as UI and and federal housing programs.
Democrats are not eligible for political sainthood either, but they have tended to be more progressive than their conservative counterparts.
Reply to universeness One can imagine many schemes that could/would/might thwart partisan politics. We could, for instance, select people at random to fill seats in Congress or Parliament. Why don't we try it?
We don't try such schemes for three reasons. First, groups of people have real interests and they are often at odds with other groups. Hence, politics. Second, whenever a convention is held to conceive reform, politics is present at the moment of conception. A political disinterested constitutional convention is an oxymoron. Third, even IF some scheme were devised that would eliminate the emergence of political parties, it would require some sort of heavy handed administrative body to enforce it. The anti-political administration would end up being worse than the political parties.
Smaller reforms in the way politics operates are a better bet. Maintaining open access to the polls, for instance, is one such approach. Conservatives (in the US) have tended to erect barriers to voter access. Or, recently, they have tried to eliminate voting by mail. Public financing of campaigns is another smaller idea.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 17:54#7564740 likes
Reply to T Clark
I would say your concern regarding the size of the populous being represented and the doubt you express regarding an alternative to party political systems, is probably the majority viewpoint at the moment. However think about the advantages of removing the 'party loyalty,' aspect of politics. In UK politics you have this ridiculous idea of 'whipping' party members. You even have a ridiculous job called the chief whip. The labels used betray how undemocratic party politics can be. Then there is the issue of internal party factions. You get stupid labelling such as 'the left of a right-wing party' and the right of a left-wing party and even occasions when they may join each other and become a new centralist party.
All such nonsense detracts from the much more important actual issues that face the country and the people these party donkeys represent. You also have the awful situation that people will vote for the party and not the candidate. So, if a complete fruit loop stands as a republican in a gerrymandered republican area then it will get elected and everyone the fruit loop represents, suffers for it.
Do you not agree that these are some of the reasons why politics are so toxic at the moment?
It seems to me that coalitions are in general less harmful when compared to any significant party majority. Surely a government of independents who were actually voted in because they have convinced people at a local level that they have their best interests at heart is got to be better that voting for a party label, and not a person.
I think there have to be established and enduring institutions that provide vision and continuity.
Why do we need this in politics? We need it in many other aspects of life, I agree, from the Army to the Rotary clubs but why do we need opposing political armies? Party politics has not not shown itself to be a good system, surely, we can do better.
Why did America bring in mid-term elections, was it not as a check, a balnce to ensure that things could not get too bad and go to far before the people had another input of consent?
I think midterms became a good idea in America based on what can happen, if you allow a government based on a party majority, to go full term, before any such checks and balances in place.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 18:31#7564810 likes
even IF some scheme were devised that would eliminate the emergence of political parties, it would require some sort of heavy handed administrative body to enforce it. The anti-political administration would end up being worse than the political parties.
Well, I dont know the name of the current body of such political facilitators in the USA, but in the UK the body you describe is called the civil service. They often have interesting relationships with individual politicians and some people, see them as the one who hold the 'real' levers of power.
This has been dramatised seriously and comedically many times on British TV with programs such as Yes Minister etc. So, such admin bodies exist already in party political systems. I don't see how a government of independents, locally elected, would make that situation any worse. I think the job of civil servants would be made much easier without party politics and I think the civil servants would be kept in check by the second 'citizens chamber' I described earlier.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 18:34#7564830 likes
Smaller reforms in the way politics operates are a better bet. Maintaining open access to the polls, for instance, is one such approach. Conservatives (in the US) have tended to erect barriers to voter access. Or, recently, they have tried to eliminate voting by mail. Public financing of campaigns is another smaller idea.
I would accept trying all of the above and see if any of them improve on the status quo.
We must be at or very near the bottom by now so any improvements would be welcome I'm sure.
Surely a government of independents who were actually voted in because they have convinced people at a local level that they have their best interests at heart is got to be better that voting for a party label, and not a person.
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work. If you started out with 100 individual, independent representatives, they would start to make coalitions around specific issues. Those coalitions would grow, consolidate, and become institutionalized. Then they'd be political parties. I think it's inevitable, and for good reason. As I said, when a jurisdiction gets to a certain size, it is ungovernable as a direct democracy.
Do you not agree that these are some of the reasons why politics are so toxic at the moment?
I am not unbiased, but I think the reason things are so troubled in the US is simple. Starting in about 1970, the Republican Party decided winning elections was more important than governing the country.
A dead guy was elected in Pennsylvania. It reminds me of the Artemis Ward quote, inasmuch as we don't seem to have a live statesman in our National Congress, let us by all means have a first-class corpse. The absolute state of American elections.
It isnt the two-party system thats the problemproportional representation, where those voted out can still cling to power in their coalitions and minority governments, is stupid. Its that there isnt an effective opposition. You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 19:40#7565020 likes
Reply to T Clark
I agree that many would find common cause, in fact I am relying on it. You and I disagree on many issues, but we do find some common ground on occasion. I doubt we would ever be members of the same political party, but we might vote the same way on certain issues. That's what we need. Issue by issue politics. Political independents, fighting for the interests of their own voters, who will negotiate and find common cause with other independents, who make up the government. It would be up to the second chamber and the civil servants to identify any unacceptable stealth tactics in use or any backroom deals in play when individual representatives vote.
Each representative would also have to answer every month, to their local constituency group. These groups would be made up of local volunteer, qualified and experienced stakeholders that reflect/mimic the elected second chamber of citizens. This constituency group would be there to ensure that the government representative was representing the will of the people who voted for them. The constituency would have the power to call for a local re-election, if it was strongly felt that the elected representative was not voting in the way they expected.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 19:43#7565040 likes
You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties.
Is that not a reason for getting rid of both of them and every other political party and you voting for the local independent who best matches your viewpoints? PR and the single transferable vote are essential imo. Universal suffrage has to be the foundation of any democratic voting system.
You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties.
The Roe vs. Wade decision had 36 sheets of paper. The Dobbs decision had 213.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 19:55#7565090 likes
Reply to NOS4A2
Your viewpoint seems a very large distance away from where I am.
I think we would struggle to find any common ground.
I agree with those who think that those who don't vote, stand on shakey ground, when they still want to be heard or have their viewpoints considered.
Issue by issue politics. Political independents, fighting for the interests of their own voters, who will negotiate and find common cause with other independents, who make up the government. It would be up to the second chamber and the civil servants to identify any unacceptable stealth tactics in use or any backroom deals in play when individual representatives vote.
I'll go back to my original argument. It doesn't matter what would happen if we had our druthers. It only matters what is possible and sustainable. I don't believe the system you describe is either.
New groups could be formed after each election, and it would probably be wise to limit the number of times any individual could be elected to become a member of the first chamber.
Term limits is smart, but it's another issue.
But if new group are formed after each election, that could be detrimental also: you simply wouldn't know what de facto your candidate will choose. It's the basic "problem" with coalition governments: you might pick a President in direct elections, but you never know who will be the prime minister as usually it's the one who finally gets the administration together, which might not be the leader of the largest party.
Now you wouldn't know which faction you would be voting for. If your an American, perhaps this idea is strange because you have just two parties, but in reality specific candidates would be hard to notice just what they represent.
I assume that you also have these "election surveys" where you can answer a question set from a broad variety of political issues and then get the candidates that are closest to you (and the most against your ideas). Usually in multiparty system you'll easily get the parties that are most against you, but many candidates that have answered the questions most according to you are from different parties. Some that you would never vote.
We're both pretty liberal. I think you're a bit more on the Bitter Crank branch of the party though.
Well, you probably know my preferred labels by now, humanist/socialist/democrat/atheist/optimist etc.
I could not use an ID such as Bitter Crank. I don't find it ironic, and I have told him that I don't understand his choice of 'handle' based on his postings. A liberal in the UK is a 'soft tory,' so I would never call myself a UK liberal. A US liberal, I would find more acceptable but still not left-wing enough for me.
It only matters what is possible and sustainable. I don't believe the system you describe is either.
Fair enough, I can only hope you will be convinced differently in the future, if those who agree with me and those who I agree with, ever number enough to democratically create such a system.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 20:13#7565190 likes
I could not use an ID such as Bitter Crank. I don't find it ironic, and I have told him that I don't understand his choice of 'handle' based on his postings.
I wasn't saying you are bitter or a crank. I was saying your politics is nearer his than mine.
Im not sure how. As I understand it SCOTUS ruled that abortion was not a protected right under the Constitution in that case.
It was a non-sequitur because a constitutional amendment has nothing to do with the discussion you and I were having. We were talking about the recent election and the effects of congressional elections.
A non-sequitur is when the logic does not follow. I thought we were talking about the differences between the two parties. Then you mentioned Supreme Court decisions, for some reason.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 20:36#7565300 likes
But if new group are formed after each election, that could be detrimental also: you simply wouldn't know what de facto your candidate will choose. It's the basic "problem" with coalition governments: you might pick a President in direct elections, but you never know who will be the prime minister as usually it's the one who finally gets the administration together, which might not be the leader of the largest party.
Let's say you have 700 constituencies in your country. So, 700 independents are elected based on a local single transferable vote system. They become the government. The old government remains in place until the new government is 'brought up to speed,' got to know each other via debate topics etc.
Probably a 2-to-three-month job. In that time they will elect amongst themselves all necessary ministerial positions and who will serve as prime minister.
Prime minister and ministers would be held in high esteem and would be the main spokespersons for the departments they would head but individually, they would have no more political power than any other member of the government. The members could vote to replace the prime minister or any other minister anytime they decided to. The civil servants would do all the admin.
The government would govern on an issue by issue basis. Common cause would be the driver of what actions the government takes. A majority vote of the 700 will decide, issue by issue. Each representative would be moderated by their own local constituency group and the government as a whole, would be further moderated by the second chamber of citizens.
Now you wouldn't know which faction you would be voting for. If your an American, perhaps this idea is strange because you have just two parties, but in reality specific candidates would be hard to notice just what they represent.
But I am not typing about how the current American system works I am advocating for replacing it.
I assume that you also have these "election surveys" where you can answer a question set from a broad variety of political issues and then get the candidates that are closest to you (and the most against your ideas). Usually in multiparty system you'll easily get the parties that are most against you, but many candidates that have answered the questions most according to you are from different parties. Some that you would never vote.
How does this relate to my suggestion of removing party politics altogether?
Then you mentioned Supreme Court decisions, for some reason.
You said there is no difference between the parties. I disagreed and noted that if Congress had been Democratic when the most recent SC judges were appointed, the right to decide to have an abortion would still be protected nationwide. There's a direct connection between party and an important social and legal outcome. Then you brought up a constitutional amendment, which does not follow from the previous discussion.
We don't have to go back and forth on this. I'll give you the last word if you want it.
Funny to think that they're gonna win the House purely due to gerrymandering given what the final margins are likely gonna be.
Their positions are so unpopular that they have to do something. They know they're a minority party. You have to hand it to them though, it's always very close. The move to stack the courts has paid off for them, and the wave of state legislators in 2010 continues to give dividends.
The fearmongering and demonization only gets you so far, however. People in the US may be wising up to the fact that the Republicans have no ideas, no plans, no solutions. They love to attack the liberal elite, and all the problems of the country, but they fail to mention that it is their party and its policies that are most responsible for them, and that they obstruct any measures to help.
See their stances on the environment: the reality is that we need less fossil fuels, not more. Their stance? They want to drill more. We need to tax the wealthy and large corporations. They want tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Etc.
Their only plan:
(1) Make the country ungovernable.
(2) Blame the Democrats for why things are so crappy.
(3) Have the electorate blame the party in power, ride the wave.
(4) Do nothing but posture, cut taxes for the rich, privatize education, de-regulate businesses, and give the country away to corporate America by any means necessary.
Didn't quite work this time. Maybe it's Trump...or maybe people have woken up to the predictable pattern.
With how the youth vote turned out to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, I hope that this will cause the Republicans to reevaluate their stances on issues such as climate change so as to appeal to the increasing concerns of that demographic.
The fossil fuel industry supports Republicans far more than Democrats. As long as that remains true, and the owners of media (like Murdoch) and think tanks (Koch) continue to support Republicans, this won't change.
I think finally the GOP can come back to it's senses. Trump is a losing card.
What "senses" would that be? They have basically one thought: minimize government (i.e., for the people). Cut taxes (for the wealthy), deregulate industry so that businesses are unfettered by rules, de-fund public goods (schools, public lands, etc). Getting back to that is an even worse message. Trump at least railed against the donor class and their puppets like Jeb Bush.
Is there a risk that the end of Trump might bring with it more astute and cunning demagoguery by people like Ron DeSantis who might actually know what they are doing?
DeSantis would be far worse, since he'd be far more focused on implementing even more failed neoliberal policies.
I wasn't saying you are bitter or a crank. I was saying your politics is nearer his than mine.
I know you weren't, I was just responding to your comparison of us both. I would agree that I probably have more political common ground with Mr Crank than Mr Clark!
It doesn't matter whether or not I'm convinced. It matters what will work and what won't.
It does matter because I, and those who agree with me, need to convince you, to support us enough to gain the numbers we need to democratically demonstrate that there is majority support in the country to get rid of the current party political system and employ the system we advocate for. If the movement for such change was here in the UK or where I think it could really happen, an Independent Scotland, then convincing you, would only matter, if you lived in that independent Scotland.
The fact remains, convincing others is essential if you want change. That's the chance to demonstrate that your system will work!
I apologize and thanks for clarifying. The legal outcome, though, is decided by the Supreme Court, and has zero to do with party politics. My point was that the parties can avoid this by amending the constitution so as to make it unequivocal. Thanks for the last word.
How does this relate to my suggestion of removing party politics altogether?
It relates in the way that even if you have parties, it's actually difficult to know just what a candidate stands for even if there belong to parties.
How would you know what kind of asshole in the end you are voting? Political candidates will likely talk only about issues that everybody is against and likely just say that they will solve the problem. They will likely shut up about really problematic issues. And how will they pass legislation? With whom? It takes a majority to pass legislation. That's team work, not individuals doing their own thing.
What "senses" would that be? They have basically one thought: minimize government (i.e., for the people). Cut taxes (for the wealthy), deregulate industry so that businesses are unfettered by rules, de-fund public goods (schools, public lands, etc). Getting back to that is an even worse message.
:smile:
Yeah. And the center-left has also a quite familiar agenda too. We have the left and the right in politics, you see.
Trump at least railed against the donor class and their puppets like Jeb Bush.
Really? Lol.
How much did he truly "drain the swamp" with those billionaires in his cabinet? From 2016:
Donald Trump has built a cabinet in his own image. The first billionaire U.S. president has appointed two billionaires and at least a dozen millionaires, with a combined net worth of about $6.1 billion, to run government departments.
Well, at least one third of his cabinet had no prior government experience, so if you think government is bad, that must be good then.
I would say people pinned hopes on Obama with all that talk of change and so on. On Trump they pinned fantasies.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 21:05#7565380 likes
How would you know what kind of asshole in the end you are voting? Political candidates will likely talk only about issues that everybody is against and likely just say that they will solve the problem.
Not everyone is nefarious. People are well known by many locally. "I went to school with him/her etc"
I trust local scrutineer's more than I trust voting for whichever suit the part rosette is pinned to, don't you feel the same way? I can go meet the independent candidates and ask them my questions. They don't know what my questions are, and they have no national political party horror to stand behind.
I think people would be able to make much more informed decisions about independent candidates compared to those with million-pound dodgy party-based advertising campaigns behind them with well-formed disingenuous pre-prepared sound bites, they can use to speak in tandem with all over the nation.
They will likely shut up about really problematic issues. And how will they pass legislation? With whom? It takes a majority to pass legislation. That's team work, not individuals doing their own thing.
If they do so, then I wouldn't vote for that candidate! Individuals who find common cause on an issue will vote the same way and the common cause must be based on the viewpoints of those who voted them in. That's what I think a government of independents would produce.
The population of Scotland is less than the population of the state of Massachusetts, where I live. Given that, it makes a better test case for your reforms than a much larger country would.
The legal outcome, though, is decided by the Supreme Court, and has zero to do with party politics.
I believe his point was that Congress would have protected abortion by federal law, in the same way that they plan to protect same-sex marriage by federal law.
Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent.
In systems which don't use proportional representation that's how things technically work. Here in the UK you vote for an individual to represent your constituency.
It just happens to be that this individual has joined with like-minded others to pool their resources.
I'm not really sure how you could take parties out of the political process. Perhaps by not having the party mentioned on the voting slip, just the candidate's name? I think in practical terms that will just reduce voter turnout as most people probably wouldn't know who the actual individuals are or what they plan to vote for, whereas they do understand parties.
I believe his point was that Congress would have protected abortion by federal law, in the same way that they plan to protect same-sex marriage by federal law.
Is it a They would have but they didnt, sort of argument?
I believe his point was that Congress would have protected abortion by federal law, in the same way that they plan to protect same-sex marriage by federal law.
Actually, I misread. He seems to have been saying that a Democrat-led Senate would have affirmed Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and wouldn't have affirmed Kavanaugh or Barrett, only accepting more moderate nominees, and that such a Supreme Court wouldn't have overruled Roe and Casey.
I suppose I can spell it out for you. Once upon a time, decades ago, I had a disagreement with someone about philosophy, politics, or religion (can't remember) and they called me a bitter crank. The irony is that I was not / am not bitter, and in my opinion, not a crank either. I thought it a novel and amusing brickbat to turn into a bouquet.
If you still don't get it, or don't like it, then... too bad.
Well, I dont know the name of the current body of such political facilitators in the USA, but in the UK the body you describe is called the civil service.
The Civil Service in the US administers the laws passed by the 2 political bodies. By law, the Civil Service is protected from politics:
Hatch Act Overview (U.S. Office of Special Counsel)
?????????????????
The Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939, limits certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. ?
The laws purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.???? ??
So in the US system, the intent is to separate the administration of the law from the politics involved in the creation of the law.
I do not like the conduct of politics, but it is absurd to suppose that it can be done away with. Given the reality of politics, the best policy is to stay alert to what is going on above and below the table. That's what a free press is supposed to help us do. An eviscerated press can't perform it's vital functions.
Politics exists because people have an appetite for power and preferences for particular policies.
The way to make politics really dangerous is to deny it exists. Some people apparently suppose that people conduct election campaigns, get elected, and then sit in legislatures or congress and engage in pristine impartial procedures to produce laws for the equitable good of all. Horse shit, of course. It's also dangerous to under rate the intensity of partisan motivation. There really are very ambitious people who covet power most greedily.
Frankly I think the outcome of this midterm was foreseeable given the surreal GOP messaging centered around abstruse topics like anti-trans rhetoric and legislation, anti-critical race theory, and of course the Dobbs decision and J6 Capital attack, in lieu of conventional messaging around the economy or inflation. The GOP is on autopilot in being more and more insane, and as off-putting as the democrats can be, it's clear that the Republicans are far more unpalatable to general Americans.
Hard to gauge at this time, but DeSantis looks like a sizeable obstacle to Trump's 2024 run. At this point, I would place a light wager on DeSantis winning the primary, given his massive win in Florida against Trump who, between the 2018 midterm, the 2020 election, and the 2022 midterm, is clearly a massive three-time loser, and who clearly just got lucky in 2016 by running against a nearly equally despised candidate. Trump also benefited as an outsider, which DeSantis cannot claim, and given DeSantis' all around lack of charisma and general reptilian demeanor, I very much doubt he'll win in a general election.
Additionally takeaways are that Beto and Abrams should stop running for senate, they do not have what it takes.
At this point, I would place a light wager on DeSantis winning the primary
Let's do it. I put my money on Trump. I bet you $1.
He's already got a cult following, and he'll embarrass DeSantis just as he did Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush -- and everyone else who's gotten in his way. But we'll see....
He seems to have been saying that a Democrat-led Senate would have affirmed Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and wouldn't have affirmed Kavanaugh or Barrett, only accepting more moderate nominees, and that such a Supreme Court wouldn't have overruled Roe and Casey.
Counterfactuals. Such speculation is fun, no doubt.
Blow it off with a smirk if you want, but I can tell you with some certainty that if Hillary Clinton hadn't blown the 2016 election, there would be a 6 to 3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court and Roe vs. Wade would not have been overturned.
He's already got a cult following, and he'll embarrass DeSantis just as he did Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush -- and everyone else who's gotten in his way. But we'll see....
I've been predicting that Trump would fade away ever since November of 2020. We've all seen how that worked out. Early in 2016 he was given a 5% chance of winning the presidency. I think this election was the first one where the Republicans have had to face the consequences of what Trump and others have done to their party. My hope is that he will continue to be a monkey wrench in their machinery, but I am not confident that is what will happen.
What if RBG didnt die? Any speculations on what would have happened had she lived?
She was 147 years old. Of course she was going to die. But she thought her career as a SC justice was more important than maintaining balance. If she hadn't died until 2021, I guess the court would be 5 conservatives to 4 liberals. Perhaps Roe vs. Wade would still have been overturned, but Roberts' more moderate changes might have won out.
The population of Scotland is less than the population of the state of Massachusetts, where I live. Given that, it makes a better test case for your reforms than a much larger country would.
I agree. If Scotland does achieve independence, then the main goal of the political party (SNP, Scottish National Party) would have been achieved, so they would have to reconstruct themselves anyway. Perhaps that would offer a chance of major change.
universenessNovember 16, 2022 at 11:23#7566430 likes
In systems which don't use proportional representation that's how things technically work. Here in the UK you vote for an individual to represent your constituency.
It just happens to be that this individual has joined with like-minded others to pool their resources.
But that's not what happens in reality. You will be familiar with terms like 'safe tory seat.' or 'the red wall' etc, and you will have heard phrases like 'you could put a red rosette on a donkey, here, and it would get elected.' This is because many people vote blindly, for a party and not a candidate.
Many people don't scrutinise the candidate, they simply vote based on loyalty to the mission statements of a party. Often, these main party tenets, are not supported by the individual candidate wearing the correct colour of rosette for you. Tony Blair and Keir Starmer are absolute shades of tory blue (which is why Thatcher called Blair her greatest achievement) or liberal yellow. They are not socialists imo. I would not vote for either of them, if they stood in the constituency, I lived in.
People would be unable to be 'lazy minded' regarding their politics if they had to think a lot more about the individual independent candidates standing, instead of just voting for a traditional colour.
Many people/constituencies have demonstrated that they will change their traditional vote for a colour, due to being attracted to some clever sound bite-based, cult of personality that got a horror like Boris Johnstone elected in the UK, much of 'the red wall, turning blue.' Party politics is toxic in todays 'sound bite,' internet based political cult of personality, realpolitik.
I'm not really sure how you could take parties out of the political process. Perhaps by not having the party mentioned on the voting slip, just the candidate's name? I think in practical terms that will just reduce voter turnout as most people probably wouldn't know who the actual individuals are or what they plan to vote for, whereas they do understand parties.
It would require a countrywide political movement. I think an independent Scotland is a good candidate for such a change as the ruling party (SNP) would have to reinvent itself anyway, after independence.
Out of little acorns, big oak trees grow! I live in hope (not a forlorn hope imo.) that if enough people share my view that we need to get rid of party politics (It's a view held by a significant number of people.)
and if they say so and write so, whenever they/we can. Then I hope we can convince others and turn the idea into a movement for such change. Groups for progressive politics such as 'COMPASS' in the UK, may be a conduit. These are groups, interested in progressive politics rather that party politics and they could be a way forward. Getting the balance correct is crucial. I don't want a future government made up of independents that are all members (or a majority are members) of a group such as COMPASS.
So, I would suggest some 'cap' on how many members of 'particular groups' can stand as independent candidates for governance.
If a person agrees that party politics, produces too many governments, which run a country based on the interests of the party, much more than the interests of the people, then they should consider alternative systems which removes party politics from governance. I don't agree we can simply remove the rosettes and party ID from the ballot papers. I would replace political parties with a national political structure.
Everyone interested in politics can join this single group. Every area would have local branches. This is where all independent candidates would come from. I can go into the details of how I think this national institution would function at a local level, if you want me to.
universenessNovember 16, 2022 at 11:52#7566460 likes
I suppose I can spell it out for you. Once upon a time, decades ago, I had a disagreement with someone about philosophy, politics, or religion (can't remember) and they called me a bitter crank. The irony is that I was not / am not bitter, and in my opinion, not a crank either. I thought it a novel and amusing brickbat to turn into a bouquet.
Yes, I accept, you are in fact in reality, the opposite of what your chosen handle suggests. (Hence my use of 'Ironic.') I don't think it was a wise choice for an internet discussion forum. People make assumptions based on your chosen identifier and you are then left with the choice to dispell the assumption that you are bitter and cranky (as you are choosing to do right now) or decide to 'not care' about the assumptions of others. I do care about such incorrect assumptions, so I don't invite them unnecessarily, by using an ill-chosen handle.
I do not like the conduct of politics, but it is absurd to suppose that it can be done away with. Given the reality of politics, the best policy is to stay alert to what is going on above and below the table. That's what a free press is supposed to help us do. An eviscerated press can't perform it's vital functions.
I agree that a free press is essential to any democratic governance system. I accept your opinion that getting rid of governance based on an elected political party majority or by coalition is absurd. My only response to your opinion is to accept that the burden lies with me, and those who agree with me, that it can be done, and that governance via elected independents, would benefit the human race far more than current governance based on an elected political party. I hope for a future, where example nations can be pointed to combat your current opinion. Neither of us are likely to be around at the time but, hey ho, who knows.
Btw, even in our current party-political system in the UK, you can stand as an independent.
Politics exists because people have an appetite for power and preferences for particular policies.
The way to make politics really dangerous is to deny it exists. Some people apparently suppose that people conduct election campaigns, get elected, and then sit in legislatures or congress and engage in pristine impartial procedures to produce laws for the equitable good of all. Horse shit, of course. It's also dangerous to under rate the intensity of partisan motivation. There really are very ambitious people who covet power most greedily.
I think politics exists because people see the wisdom of living and working as a collective, driven by common cause. It's ruined due to the existence of a powerful, well established dynastic history of a nefarious few and the residue of such horrors as religion and the divine right of kings/messiahs/aristocracies/plutocracies etc to rule or govern. I certainly don't advocate for denying politics exist. Your quote above, 'concentrates' on those in politics who are nefarious. It just seems that everyone in politics is nefarious. But that is actually not true, at all! Do you accept that? or do you really think every politician is nefarious?
Do you accept that? or do you really think every politician is nefarious?
I accept that. No, I do not think most politicians are nefarious. Many politicians are well-motivated, with the intention to perform good public service.
That said, economic interests modify what "good public service" means. The United States is a big country with 300,000,000+ people. It is easier to judge politicians on a state and local level than the national level. That's probably true in the UK, too.
As for bitter crankery, it is just a handle, not a summation. It could be ishkabibble just as easily. Or universeness.
In addition to all that can be said about Trump causing the weak performance in the midterms, I think we can also credit/blame the Supreme Court. Having an entire branch of government sympathetic to Republican causes for the next few decades likely has taken some of the urgency of Republicans to elect representatives. That is, they're happy with the way things are, so it would follow that they have no motivation to shake up the status quo.
I say this to make Democrats sad, by telling them that the reason they won the mid-terms is because the Republicans don't care because they didn't matter. They already won something much bigger.
I say this to make Democrats sad, by telling them that the reason they won the mid-terms is because the Republicans don't care because they didn't matter. They already won something much bigger.
Congress still makes the laws, though
universenessNovember 16, 2022 at 16:24#7567240 likes
It is easier to judge politicians on a state and local level than the national level. That's probably true in the UK, too.
I agree and I think it's such local level judgement that can best bring them down if they do prove to be nefarious. This is why I want to remove the current 'party protections' they have.
My sense of U.S. politics is it's kind of like WWE where your guy taking a beating / the other guy winning is always very painful. This is borne out by my (limited) experience on U.S. politics forums, which are dominated by "Fuck you, we're gonna kick your ass" type posturing, likely supercharged in recent years by Trumpism. Also, from a practical viewpoint, with the Senate in his hands, Biden can continue to nominate Dem judges to the lower courts and pretty much ignore the House which, with a wafer thin majority, will mostly consist of Republican factions eating each other alive and nothing getting done. That's a big win for Dems. So, maybe at the margins wavering Republicans may have not bothered voting out of complacency, but wouldn't the type that care a lot about having a red Supreme Court also probably be team players that are going to vote pro-red / anti-blue every chance they get both to get the boot into the other side and due to hot-button issues like abortion etc? Like, if you're cheering that abortion rights have been curtailed by the SC, you really don't want a pro-choicer representing you at local level, correct?
All's this to say that imo the election result wasn't so much about your average Republican or Dem voters but independents who were put off by the raft of shitty Republican candidates Trump successfully pushed for and thought the Dems the lesser of two evils, i.e. moderates that would normally lean Republican in mid-terms set against a backdrop of serious economic uncertainty and an unpopular President but were given reason not to this time. And if that's the case, the absolute last red ticket you want is Orange Man redux, especially seeing as for some unfathomable reason, the equally awful De Santis seems acceptable to most Americans and would probably have an excellent chance against sleepy Joe (who seems intent on ignoring his curtain call). So, the danger here is you hand Biden a second term and the House back to the Dems without them having to do anything but sit back and watch Trump implode. Maybe a really bad recession saves you, but that's your only Hail Mary.
Are you sad yet? I'm really trying to make you sad here... :halo:
Reply to Baden I read your post by skimming down the middle of it, so if I say something that doesn't really respond to it, it has to do with my reading style.
I think the win for Trump here is that with a Republican majority in the House, the investigative committee against him will be disbanded and then they can go about the important business of investigating Hunter Biden's computer or some such shit.
Trump rules from fear, which he uses only against his own party to keep them from challenging him, leaving a bunch of battered opponents waiting for the chance to destroy him once he's been weakened, which seems to be about now.
I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that.
Leaving that aside, the guy seems to be a scumbag from just about every angle. If you do vote for him, for the love of Yahweh at least have the decency to lie about it afterwards.
I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that.
Yes, a form of demonstrated honesty about the nature of politics. I wonder how many ex-professional athletes have served in congress in the last few years? Walker is from my alma mater. :sad:
I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that.
Leaving that aside, the guy seems to be a scumbag from just about every angle. If you do vote for him, for the love of Yahweh at least have the decency to lie about it afterwards.
Herschel was a hell of a running back, which usually translates into an equally amazing upper legislative chamber member.
I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that.
I get what you're talking about. It would be a shame not to recognize such an accomplishment. There is something profound, sublime, in the shamelessness.
I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that.
But he'd rather be a werewolf than a vampire, and everyone knows that werewolves are lame.
So, in the video Herp-a-durp stepped on another dude's head and that counts `as a score, I get it. As for the connection to politics, is this how you decide which laws get passed in 'Murica? Party members step on each other's heads and those with the least brain damage get to make the laws? ...Plausible.
I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that.
And an enthusiastic cocaine and meth user who is for harsher jail terms.
Well, Canada had a mayor who indulged in crack....
Nevertheless, onto the thread here, it is a tribute to Republican fanaticism that they could not pick up a single senate sit. Not that this makes it a ride for Biden, given Sinema and Manchin - those two are Republicans too.
But these right wingers fucked up with the abortion issue and not wanting to consider student loan forgiveness and on and on.
Sadly, no change in FP from either party, which is alarming given how many dangerous conflicts are waiting for a spark.
, in the video Herp-a-durp stepped on another dude's head and that counts `as a score, I get it. As for the connection to politics, is this how you decide which laws get passed in 'Murica? Party members step on each other's heads and those with the least brain damage get to make the laws? ...Plausible
Now you've put me on a mission to find a crazy Irish politician so I can retaliate and divert. Let me get to Googling and I'll be back in a few.
Karl Marx's Irish Grandson. Not sure about football but he can belt a sliotar from one end of the pitch to the other.
universenessNovember 18, 2022 at 11:26#7573200 likes
Reply to Hanover
Is that no jist oor big yin (Billy Connolly, withoot his specs!), huvvin a wee laff wi you yankie doodles by posing as a polly tician?
Fuck me, suppose Kevin McCarthy can't get to 218 in January ...
:yikes: :scream:
[quote=MAGA Clown Sean Hannity, 03Jan23] House Republicans are [s]on the verge of becoming[/s] a total clown show.[/quote]
:rofl:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/04/live-updates-kevin-mccarthy-speaker-of-the-house-vote/10985244002/
Either Dems Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries D-NY or ... "Individual-1" (aka "Defendent-1") as next Speaker of the House of Representatives??? :brow:
They keep describing the republican dissidents as 'ultra conservatives', when in actual fact, as mentioned above, they're radicals. They don't want to govern, the want to bring down the government.
Reply to BenkeiThe rules of the US [s]Constitution[/s] House of Representatives requires the Speaker to win the majority of votes of all members-elect present. When all 435 are present, the Speaker is elected with "218" or more votes. Minority Leader Jeffries is only winning "212" (all Dems). If, however, enough GOP members-elect (12 or more) get frustrated enough and don't show up for a vote, then "212" might become the majority number of votes. The rules for electing a Speaker can be changed by a majority ("218") votes. :roll: Btw, the last time a shitshow like this happened in the US Congress was 1923 ...
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/03/house-speaker-election-congress-mccarthy-1856
I look at it a little different. I think thats what they CLAIM. But I think a more accurate picture is that people like Gaetz and Boebert want to make a show of things, this way they can claim to be disruptors. I imagine theyll work something out eventually how long they manage to keep this up, who knows. Eventually the pressure will be too great. You even have Trump and Greene coming out against them.
Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina has said a non-negotiable for him is if McCarthy is willing to shut the government down rather than raising the debt ceiling.
If these kinds of people cause a US debt default, then it's brush up your survival skills and buy lots of tinned supplies well in advance, because the resulting economic disruption will make The Great Depression seem like a picnic. And they're willing to do it! Some of them at least believe they are doing God's work.
But I think a more accurate picture is that people like Gaetz and Boebert want to make a show of things
:up: "Two gun Boebert" represents my district, winning over a Democrat by a very narrow margin. I agree with your assessment. She is the far-rights' AOC.
Reply to jgill Maybe they wouldn't do it on purpose, but they've shown they're willing to play chicken with the fate of the world in service to their lunatic ideology. Although from a more hopeful perspective, we could be seeing the death throes of MAGA Republicans, as they prove beyond shadow of doubt that they're unfit for office.
Reply to 180 Proof Thanks! So why aren't the Dems making a deal? Seems they benefit from a split GOP instead of letting them reach a deal where concessions are made on who campaigns where.
Either Dems Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries D-NY or ... "Individual-1" (aka "Defendent-1") as next Speaker of the House of Representatives??? :brow:
My 2 bit(coin)s are on a half dozen GOP members-elect making a deal with the Dems and voting for Jeffries within a week unless McCarthy gives up (and probably resigns from Congress in disgrace) allowing the GOP caucus to vote in a powerless stooge as Speaker.
Caveat: "Individual-1" is improbable (becoming less so with each day that passes without a resolution) but not impossible.
Thanks! So why aren't the Dems making a deal? Seems they benefit from a split GOP instead of letting them reach a deal where concessions are made on who campaigns where.
The Republicans are infighting for power, trying to portray it is ideological, but it's far from consistent.
McCarthy, it is argued, is an old school lobbyist controlled Republican who the newer right (Trump like) Republicans don't like because they want to "drain the swamp," meaning clear out the old guard power structure.
There are at least 5 Republicans (supposedly far right) who have declared they'll never vote for McCarthy. There are 20 or so who said they'll always vote for him.
Here's where it stops making sense entirely. Marjorie Green is a hard core Trumpian, yet she is heavily aligned with McCarthy. Boebert has moved away from Trump after winning by only 1000 or so votes last election, but she's aligned with the never McCarthy group. Trump himself supports McCarthy. Gaetz is a never McCarthy person and he nominated Trump for speaker and then cast the single vote for him.
So, while they pretend it's about ideology, they're really just supporting the person who will give them the best committee assignments and that's what they're making deals over right now.
They will never cede power to the Democrats or align themselves with them. They're just selfishly taking advantage of the power vacuum and trying to fill it.
Can you explain to me how any legislation is ever going to get passed seeing as anything the HFC don't want to veto will never get through the Democratic senate?
As in what is even the point of being speaker if you guarantee your own legislative impotence?
Can you explain to me how any legislation is ever going to get passed seeing as anything the HFC don't want to veto will never get through the Democratic senate?
Theres nothing to explain. Legislation simply wont be passed the next two years beyond the most necessary bills, and even then not without some brinksmanship.
Can you explain to me how any legislation is ever going to get passed seeing as anything the HFC don't want to veto will never get through the Democratic senate?
As in what is even the point of being speaker if you guarantee your own legislative impotence?
Anytime you have divided chambers, you have a certain amount of gridlock, and that gridlock has progressively grown over the years with increased polarization. It's especially a problem where the margins of control are so minimal, so that you can have a group of 5 or so radicals who can hold their entire party hostage unless concessions are given. You saw something similar in the Senate where the Democrats had a 50/50 split, with the tie being decided by the Democrat VP, so Democrat Manchin seized complete power by not voting lock step and making himself the deciding swing vote.
Where I do think there is strong Republican alignment is over their disdain for the Democrats, meaning this will not result in increased harmonization where the parties actually start working together so that moderate factions can gain power through consolidation. That would expect a very Parliament type reaction from the American sharply divided system. Diverse groups do not pool their resources under the American system to increase their power. They fight until their mutual death like God intended.
The American system, IMHO, is designed by intent toward maintaining a status quo, especially in times of political discord, restraining the government from instituting significant change when there is disagreement. Handicapping the government is intentional because it is generally distrusted, as it was created by a bunch of rebels who thought government was inherently tyrannical. Your ancestors know that well, having been left behind with the tyrannical British for all those additional years. Damn those bastards!
What we're seeing is the system functioning as expected, and it's really (I'm hoping) the final fallout of the Trump years, where the party divided into two groups, one the traditional Republicans and the other Trump Republicans, where the traditional ones had to hold their breath until Trump went away. Trump's vindictiveness for lack of loyalty by attacking members of his own party and subjecting them to primaries destroyed the cohesiveness and makes this break today in the House not that unusual. You have a good number of Republicans (who seem to be symbolized by McCarthy) who are ready to take the party back to where it was prior to Trump and this is hopefully the beginning of that, with fuckheads trying to stop it.
The winners from the infighting and division are obviously the Democrats, who stopped the red wave from happening with a pretty lackluster and unpopular President. I'm rooting for the Democrats to make some real gains during this so that the Republican party can implode and erect as something not so stupid. The only platform I can decipher that the Republicans have at this point is that they want to investigate Hunter Biden. That's super duper important apparently. As if to be a Republican means you like investigations so we can know shit, fuck legislating over anything else. Even Desantis, the great Trump expected replacement, announces he wants to investigate Fauci. Can they just fucking stop? If I learn in 3 years I wore a mask I didn't really need to wear, I guess I'll be really proud to have been a Republican to now know that.
The Republican extremists have increasingly resorted to threats and blackmail to get what they want, and blackmail is definitely not 'politics as usual'. There are dire predictions of the hard right using the threat to block the debt ceiling increase to extort concessions from the Government, mainly to reduce spending on social services, a tactic which was initiated by Newt Gingrich, although he at least showed a modicum of common sense in deploying it (as per this NYT OpEd.) But, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, as the saying has it, and Gingrich laid the foundation for this destructive phase of right-wing radicalism. And as has been pointed out, Government borrowing is to cover costs already incurred by the Government. If the Republicans want to reduce spending, well and good, but they need to go to the polls on that basis, and win elections to do it, not use extortion tactics to bludgeon their way
[quote=The Hill;https://thehill.com/homenews/3804637-gop-rep-nancy-mace-blasts-matt-gaetz-as-a-fraud-for-fundraising-off-mccarthy-speaker-votes/]Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) called fellow Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) a fraud for fundraising off of his efforts to block Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from winning the position last week.
Matt Gaetz is a fraud. Every time he voted against Kevin McCarthy last week he sent out a fundraising email, Mace said on CBSs Face The Nation with Margaret Brennan. What you saw last week was a constitutional process diminished by those kinds of political actions.[/quote]
Comments (121)
Yes. Very happy to see Lake lose.
Even though this bucked the trend for midterms, its still depressing that so many were so close, and the Republicans get the house regardless.
The Grand Old Party needs to pull itself out of the middle ages.
Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent. Any second chamber should be an elected citizen's chamber, representing social groups such as youth, the elderly, the disabled, the military, the police, medical, science etc.
Policies, laws should be based on bills introduced by any member of the government chamber and then should be debated by its members. Any law/government act, must be ratified by a majority from the second chamber.
We need a different politics or horrors like Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro, etc will always return to the main stage from time to time
Funny to think that they're gonna win the House purely due to gerrymandering given what the final margins are likely gonna be.
I think finally the GOP can come back to it's senses. Trump is a losing card.
In fact, the Democrats can hope that the GOP takes Trump to be their candidate in the Presidential elections: nothing else would mobilize the Dems better and alienate many that otherwise would vote for a Republican candidate.
Quoting universeness
That doesn't even logically work when voting in any parliamentary system is based on a majority. It is totally rational to make coalitions. In order to get what is important for you to be pushed through, you have to make then packs with other who have their agenda. Hence the party system basically will emerge, even if they aren't called political parties.
Secondly, even on the local level the political divide is there among the people: some want to use tax money to be spent of issues while others don't and just want lower taxes. Some want more collective decision making and others individual freedoms. It doesn't go away on the local level, you know.
I think the US would need more political parties and coalition governments and then root out it's corruption. But if people aren't aware of the domination of the whole system by the two parties, then there isn't going to be change.
Is there a risk that the end of Trump might bring with it more astute and cunning demagoguery by people like Ron DeSantis who might actually know what they are doing?
You saying that makes me feel optimistic about the political right in the US.
Insanity has to come to end sometime.
I disagree, as any pacts or groupings based on common cause would be terminated at every new election. No establishment of governmental groups such as the tory '1922 committee' in the UK, would be allowed to continue. New groups could be formed after each election, and it would probably be wise to limit the number of times any individual could be elected to become a member of the first chamber.
Almost three-quarters of women, it's been estimated, voted for the Democrats in the midterm elections. Murica ain't "Gilead" yet, bubba. :up:
And maybe this electoral gift will keep on giving:
Sen. Warnock wins re-election handily in run-off on December 6th
House of Reps GOP [s]219[/s] 222, Dems [s]216[/s] 212
Rep. Kevin McCarthy fails to get 218 votes needed to become Speaker of the House on January 3rd because several or more
"Freedom Caucus" Trumpstains don't vote for him ... Maybe an outside, non-member of Congress (e.g. retired federal Judge Michael Luttig :yikes:) will be elected Speaker by mostly GOP and several conservative Dems (which could very much limit the obstructive Trumpy shenanigans next year)
Sen. "Moscow Mitch" MCConnell loses Senate Minority Leader title (unlikely, but one can still hope)
Senate Dems form Senate Select Cmte on January 6th Insurrection to pick up where House Select Cmte will leave off after the GOP takes over in the House
with 2022 midterm elections concluded, by mid-December the DoJ indicts Individual-1 (at least for Obstruction of Justice, maybe also for Espionage) and/or Fulton County, GA district attorney begins indicting 2020 election interference co-conspirators (e.g. Guiliani, Meadows, fake electors, et al)
Politics is always ugly and I think you'll always get bad people grasping for power. Here in New England many municipalities have direct democracy - town meetings where either all adult residents or elected local representatives vote. It works reasonably well for small towns, but breaks down the larger the group gets. I think there have to be established and enduring institutions that provide vision and continuity. As badly as it sometimes seems to be working, I can't think of a better mechanism than some sort of party system.
As for the US midterm election, some are saying this will be the beginning of the end of the 30+ year Republican rampage against governance. I hope that's true.
Conservative interests and politics have been a negative and enduring drag on American life for a long time. Whether they are called "republican" or "democrat" doesn't matter that much. Conservatives resisted legislation to establish Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, social welfare programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and more. Southern Democrats (DBA conservatives) imposed race-based limitations on progressive programs such as UI and and federal housing programs.
Democrats are not eligible for political sainthood either, but they have tended to be more progressive than their conservative counterparts.
We don't try such schemes for three reasons. First, groups of people have real interests and they are often at odds with other groups. Hence, politics. Second, whenever a convention is held to conceive reform, politics is present at the moment of conception. A political disinterested constitutional convention is an oxymoron. Third, even IF some scheme were devised that would eliminate the emergence of political parties, it would require some sort of heavy handed administrative body to enforce it. The anti-political administration would end up being worse than the political parties.
Smaller reforms in the way politics operates are a better bet. Maintaining open access to the polls, for instance, is one such approach. Conservatives (in the US) have tended to erect barriers to voter access. Or, recently, they have tried to eliminate voting by mail. Public financing of campaigns is another smaller idea.
I would say your concern regarding the size of the populous being represented and the doubt you express regarding an alternative to party political systems, is probably the majority viewpoint at the moment. However think about the advantages of removing the 'party loyalty,' aspect of politics. In UK politics you have this ridiculous idea of 'whipping' party members. You even have a ridiculous job called the chief whip. The labels used betray how undemocratic party politics can be. Then there is the issue of internal party factions. You get stupid labelling such as 'the left of a right-wing party' and the right of a left-wing party and even occasions when they may join each other and become a new centralist party.
All such nonsense detracts from the much more important actual issues that face the country and the people these party donkeys represent. You also have the awful situation that people will vote for the party and not the candidate. So, if a complete fruit loop stands as a republican in a gerrymandered republican area then it will get elected and everyone the fruit loop represents, suffers for it.
Do you not agree that these are some of the reasons why politics are so toxic at the moment?
It seems to me that coalitions are in general less harmful when compared to any significant party majority. Surely a government of independents who were actually voted in because they have convinced people at a local level that they have their best interests at heart is got to be better that voting for a party label, and not a person.
Quoting T Clark
Why do we need this in politics? We need it in many other aspects of life, I agree, from the Army to the Rotary clubs but why do we need opposing political armies? Party politics has not not shown itself to be a good system, surely, we can do better.
Why did America bring in mid-term elections, was it not as a check, a balnce to ensure that things could not get too bad and go to far before the people had another input of consent?
I think midterms became a good idea in America based on what can happen, if you allow a government based on a party majority, to go full term, before any such checks and balances in place.
That would be madcap, which is why I don't and didn't suggest it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, I dont know the name of the current body of such political facilitators in the USA, but in the UK the body you describe is called the civil service. They often have interesting relationships with individual politicians and some people, see them as the one who hold the 'real' levers of power.
This has been dramatised seriously and comedically many times on British TV with programs such as Yes Minister etc. So, such admin bodies exist already in party political systems. I don't see how a government of independents, locally elected, would make that situation any worse. I think the job of civil servants would be made much easier without party politics and I think the civil servants would be kept in check by the second 'citizens chamber' I described earlier.
I would accept trying all of the above and see if any of them improve on the status quo.
We must be at or very near the bottom by now so any improvements would be welcome I'm sure.
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work. If you started out with 100 individual, independent representatives, they would start to make coalitions around specific issues. Those coalitions would grow, consolidate, and become institutionalized. Then they'd be political parties. I think it's inevitable, and for good reason. As I said, when a jurisdiction gets to a certain size, it is ungovernable as a direct democracy.
Quoting universeness
I am not unbiased, but I think the reason things are so troubled in the US is simple. Starting in about 1970, the Republican Party decided winning elections was more important than governing the country.
It isnt the two-party system thats the problemproportional representation, where those voted out can still cling to power in their coalitions and minority governments, is stupid. Its that there isnt an effective opposition. You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties.
I agree that many would find common cause, in fact I am relying on it. You and I disagree on many issues, but we do find some common ground on occasion. I doubt we would ever be members of the same political party, but we might vote the same way on certain issues. That's what we need. Issue by issue politics. Political independents, fighting for the interests of their own voters, who will negotiate and find common cause with other independents, who make up the government. It would be up to the second chamber and the civil servants to identify any unacceptable stealth tactics in use or any backroom deals in play when individual representatives vote.
Each representative would also have to answer every month, to their local constituency group. These groups would be made up of local volunteer, qualified and experienced stakeholders that reflect/mimic the elected second chamber of citizens. This constituency group would be there to ensure that the government representative was representing the will of the people who voted for them. The constituency would have the power to call for a local re-election, if it was strongly felt that the elected representative was not voting in the way they expected.
Is that not a reason for getting rid of both of them and every other political party and you voting for the local independent who best matches your viewpoints? PR and the single transferable vote are essential imo. Universal suffrage has to be the foundation of any democratic voting system.
Im against voting in general. But I dont think we should get rid of the parties. Parties can change. Party civil wars are welcome, in my opinion.
The Roe vs. Wade decision had 36 sheets of paper. The Dobbs decision had 213.
Your viewpoint seems a very large distance away from where I am.
I think we would struggle to find any common ground.
I agree with those who think that those who don't vote, stand on shakey ground, when they still want to be heard or have their viewpoints considered.
None of which was legislated in congress.
We're both pretty liberal. I think you're a bit more on the @Bitter Crank branch of the party though.
Quoting universeness
I'll go back to my original argument. It doesn't matter what would happen if we had our druthers. It only matters what is possible and sustainable. I don't believe the system you describe is either.
The only viewpoint under consideration when it comes to voting is deciding which person you want to decide matters for you.
Term limits is smart, but it's another issue.
But if new group are formed after each election, that could be detrimental also: you simply wouldn't know what de facto your candidate will choose. It's the basic "problem" with coalition governments: you might pick a President in direct elections, but you never know who will be the prime minister as usually it's the one who finally gets the administration together, which might not be the leader of the largest party.
Now you wouldn't know which faction you would be voting for. If your an American, perhaps this idea is strange because you have just two parties, but in reality specific candidates would be hard to notice just what they represent.
I assume that you also have these "election surveys" where you can answer a question set from a broad variety of political issues and then get the candidates that are closest to you (and the most against your ideas). Usually in multiparty system you'll easily get the parties that are most against you, but many candidates that have answered the questions most according to you are from different parties. Some that you would never vote.
Dobbs would not have happened if the Senate was Democratic during the last half of Obama's second term or while Trump was president.
Well, you probably know my preferred labels by now, humanist/socialist/democrat/atheist/optimist etc.
I could not use an ID such as Bitter Crank. I don't find it ironic, and I have told him that I don't understand his choice of 'handle' based on his postings. A liberal in the UK is a 'soft tory,' so I would never call myself a UK liberal. A US liberal, I would find more acceptable but still not left-wing enough for me.
Quoting T Clark
Fair enough, I can only hope you will be convinced differently in the future, if those who agree with me and those who I agree with, ever number enough to democratically create such a system.
But voting is also a way to change that. I would vote for someone who believes in getting rid of party-political systems.
It would not have happened if there was an amendment to the constitution affording people the right to an abortion.
I wasn't saying you are bitter or a crank. I was saying your politics is nearer his than mine.
Quoting universeness
It doesn't matter whether or not I'm convinced. It matters what will work and what won't.
That's quite a non-sequitur.
Im not sure how. As I understand it SCOTUS ruled that abortion was not a protected right under the Constitution in that case.
It was a non-sequitur because a constitutional amendment has nothing to do with the discussion you and I were having. We were talking about the recent election and the effects of congressional elections.
A non-sequitur is when the logic does not follow. I thought we were talking about the differences between the two parties. Then you mentioned Supreme Court decisions, for some reason.
Let's say you have 700 constituencies in your country. So, 700 independents are elected based on a local single transferable vote system. They become the government. The old government remains in place until the new government is 'brought up to speed,' got to know each other via debate topics etc.
Probably a 2-to-three-month job. In that time they will elect amongst themselves all necessary ministerial positions and who will serve as prime minister.
Prime minister and ministers would be held in high esteem and would be the main spokespersons for the departments they would head but individually, they would have no more political power than any other member of the government. The members could vote to replace the prime minister or any other minister anytime they decided to. The civil servants would do all the admin.
The government would govern on an issue by issue basis. Common cause would be the driver of what actions the government takes. A majority vote of the 700 will decide, issue by issue. Each representative would be moderated by their own local constituency group and the government as a whole, would be further moderated by the second chamber of citizens.
Quoting ssu
But I am not typing about how the current American system works I am advocating for replacing it.
Quoting ssu
How does this relate to my suggestion of removing party politics altogether?
You said there is no difference between the parties. I disagreed and noted that if Congress had been Democratic when the most recent SC judges were appointed, the right to decide to have an abortion would still be protected nationwide. There's a direct connection between party and an important social and legal outcome. Then you brought up a constitutional amendment, which does not follow from the previous discussion.
We don't have to go back and forth on this. I'll give you the last word if you want it.
Their positions are so unpopular that they have to do something. They know they're a minority party. You have to hand it to them though, it's always very close. The move to stack the courts has paid off for them, and the wave of state legislators in 2010 continues to give dividends.
The fearmongering and demonization only gets you so far, however. People in the US may be wising up to the fact that the Republicans have no ideas, no plans, no solutions. They love to attack the liberal elite, and all the problems of the country, but they fail to mention that it is their party and its policies that are most responsible for them, and that they obstruct any measures to help.
See their stances on the environment: the reality is that we need less fossil fuels, not more. Their stance? They want to drill more. We need to tax the wealthy and large corporations. They want tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Etc.
Their only plan:
(1) Make the country ungovernable.
(2) Blame the Democrats for why things are so crappy.
(3) Have the electorate blame the party in power, ride the wave.
(4) Do nothing but posture, cut taxes for the rich, privatize education, de-regulate businesses, and give the country away to corporate America by any means necessary.
Didn't quite work this time. Maybe it's Trump...or maybe people have woken up to the predictable pattern.
Quoting Mr Bee
The fossil fuel industry supports Republicans far more than Democrats. As long as that remains true, and the owners of media (like Murdoch) and think tanks (Koch) continue to support Republicans, this won't change.
Quoting ssu
What "senses" would that be? They have basically one thought: minimize government (i.e., for the people). Cut taxes (for the wealthy), deregulate industry so that businesses are unfettered by rules, de-fund public goods (schools, public lands, etc). Getting back to that is an even worse message. Trump at least railed against the donor class and their puppets like Jeb Bush.
Quoting Tom Storm
DeSantis would be far worse, since he'd be far more focused on implementing even more failed neoliberal policies.
I believe you predictable a blue wave, no? Didn't really materialize, but you were closer than what the media was saying.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Agreed.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yeah, they're definitely both the same. One party believes in climate change, the other says it's a hoax. Minor differences.
I know you weren't, I was just responding to your comparison of us both. I would agree that I probably have more political common ground with Mr Crank than Mr Clark!
Quoting T Clark
It does matter because I, and those who agree with me, need to convince you, to support us enough to gain the numbers we need to democratically demonstrate that there is majority support in the country to get rid of the current party political system and employ the system we advocate for. If the movement for such change was here in the UK or where I think it could really happen, an Independent Scotland, then convincing you, would only matter, if you lived in that independent Scotland.
The fact remains, convincing others is essential if you want change. That's the chance to demonstrate that your system will work!
I apologize and thanks for clarifying. The legal outcome, though, is decided by the Supreme Court, and has zero to do with party politics. My point was that the parties can avoid this by amending the constitution so as to make it unequivocal. Thanks for the last word.
It relates in the way that even if you have parties, it's actually difficult to know just what a candidate stands for even if there belong to parties.
How would you know what kind of asshole in the end you are voting? Political candidates will likely talk only about issues that everybody is against and likely just say that they will solve the problem. They will likely shut up about really problematic issues. And how will they pass legislation? With whom? It takes a majority to pass legislation. That's team work, not individuals doing their own thing.
:smile:
Yeah. And the center-left has also a quite familiar agenda too. We have the left and the right in politics, you see.
Quoting Mikie
Really? Lol.
How much did he truly "drain the swamp" with those billionaires in his cabinet? From 2016:
Well, at least one third of his cabinet had no prior government experience, so if you think government is bad, that must be good then.
I would say people pinned hopes on Obama with all that talk of change and so on. On Trump they pinned fantasies.
Does that not support my position that we should get rid of political parties?
Quoting ssu
Not everyone is nefarious. People are well known by many locally. "I went to school with him/her etc"
I trust local scrutineer's more than I trust voting for whichever suit the part rosette is pinned to, don't you feel the same way? I can go meet the independent candidates and ask them my questions. They don't know what my questions are, and they have no national political party horror to stand behind.
I think people would be able to make much more informed decisions about independent candidates compared to those with million-pound dodgy party-based advertising campaigns behind them with well-formed disingenuous pre-prepared sound bites, they can use to speak in tandem with all over the nation.
Quoting ssu
If they do so, then I wouldn't vote for that candidate! Individuals who find common cause on an issue will vote the same way and the common cause must be based on the viewpoints of those who voted them in. That's what I think a government of independents would produce.
I didn't predict a "blue wave", just the complete absence of a red one. I thought the Dems would hold the House close but no cigar.
Bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions Caucus
Conservative Climate Caucus
The population of Scotland is less than the population of the state of Massachusetts, where I live. Given that, it makes a better test case for your reforms than a much larger country would.
This has nothing to do with what I said.
Quoting ssu
Yeah, really. It's fairly well documented.
Quoting ssu
No kidding.
I believe his point was that Congress would have protected abortion by federal law, in the same way that they plan to protect same-sex marriage by federal law.
In systems which don't use proportional representation that's how things technically work. Here in the UK you vote for an individual to represent your constituency.
It just happens to be that this individual has joined with like-minded others to pool their resources.
I'm not really sure how you could take parties out of the political process. Perhaps by not having the party mentioned on the voting slip, just the candidate's name? I think in practical terms that will just reduce voter turnout as most people probably wouldn't know who the actual individuals are or what they plan to vote for, whereas they do understand parties.
Is it a They would have but they didnt, sort of argument?
It appears to be a "they would have were they able, but they weren't able" sort of argument.
Actually, I misread. He seems to have been saying that a Democrat-led Senate would have affirmed Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and wouldn't have affirmed Kavanaugh or Barrett, only accepting more moderate nominees, and that such a Supreme Court wouldn't have overruled Roe and Casey.
Very close. I'm very pleased with how the Dems did.
Counterfactuals. Such speculation is fun, no doubt.
I suppose I can spell it out for you. Once upon a time, decades ago, I had a disagreement with someone about philosophy, politics, or religion (can't remember) and they called me a bitter crank. The irony is that I was not / am not bitter, and in my opinion, not a crank either. I thought it a novel and amusing brickbat to turn into a bouquet.
If you still don't get it, or don't like it, then... too bad.
Quoting universeness
The Civil Service in the US administers the laws passed by the 2 political bodies. By law, the Civil Service is protected from politics:
Hatch Act Overview (U.S. Office of Special Counsel)
?????????????????
So in the US system, the intent is to separate the administration of the law from the politics involved in the creation of the law.
I do not like the conduct of politics, but it is absurd to suppose that it can be done away with. Given the reality of politics, the best policy is to stay alert to what is going on above and below the table. That's what a free press is supposed to help us do. An eviscerated press can't perform it's vital functions.
Politics exists because people have an appetite for power and preferences for particular policies.
The way to make politics really dangerous is to deny it exists. Some people apparently suppose that people conduct election campaigns, get elected, and then sit in legislatures or congress and engage in pristine impartial procedures to produce laws for the equitable good of all. Horse shit, of course. It's also dangerous to under rate the intensity of partisan motivation. There really are very ambitious people who covet power most greedily.
Hard to gauge at this time, but DeSantis looks like a sizeable obstacle to Trump's 2024 run. At this point, I would place a light wager on DeSantis winning the primary, given his massive win in Florida against Trump who, between the 2018 midterm, the 2020 election, and the 2022 midterm, is clearly a massive three-time loser, and who clearly just got lucky in 2016 by running against a nearly equally despised candidate. Trump also benefited as an outsider, which DeSantis cannot claim, and given DeSantis' all around lack of charisma and general reptilian demeanor, I very much doubt he'll win in a general election.
Additionally takeaways are that Beto and Abrams should stop running for senate, they do not have what it takes.
Let's do it. I put my money on Trump. I bet you $1.
He's already got a cult following, and he'll embarrass DeSantis just as he did Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush -- and everyone else who's gotten in his way. But we'll see....
:up:
Yes. This is what I meant.
Blow it off with a smirk if you want, but I can tell you with some certainty that if Hillary Clinton hadn't blown the 2016 election, there would be a 6 to 3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court and Roe vs. Wade would not have been overturned.
What if RBG didnt die? Any speculations on what would have happened had she lived?
I've been predicting that Trump would fade away ever since November of 2020. We've all seen how that worked out. Early in 2016 he was given a 5% chance of winning the presidency. I think this election was the first one where the Republicans have had to face the consequences of what Trump and others have done to their party. My hope is that he will continue to be a monkey wrench in their machinery, but I am not confident that is what will happen.
She was 147 years old. Of course she was going to die. But she thought her career as a SC justice was more important than maintaining balance. If she hadn't died until 2021, I guess the court would be 5 conservatives to 4 liberals. Perhaps Roe vs. Wade would still have been overturned, but Roberts' more moderate changes might have won out.
Fair enough. But, just to say, we can read the opinions of the highest court in the land to discover why in fact it was overturned.
I agree. If Scotland does achieve independence, then the main goal of the political party (SNP, Scottish National Party) would have been achieved, so they would have to reconstruct themselves anyway. Perhaps that would offer a chance of major change.
But that's not what happens in reality. You will be familiar with terms like 'safe tory seat.' or 'the red wall' etc, and you will have heard phrases like 'you could put a red rosette on a donkey, here, and it would get elected.' This is because many people vote blindly, for a party and not a candidate.
Many people don't scrutinise the candidate, they simply vote based on loyalty to the mission statements of a party. Often, these main party tenets, are not supported by the individual candidate wearing the correct colour of rosette for you. Tony Blair and Keir Starmer are absolute shades of tory blue (which is why Thatcher called Blair her greatest achievement) or liberal yellow. They are not socialists imo. I would not vote for either of them, if they stood in the constituency, I lived in.
People would be unable to be 'lazy minded' regarding their politics if they had to think a lot more about the individual independent candidates standing, instead of just voting for a traditional colour.
Many people/constituencies have demonstrated that they will change their traditional vote for a colour, due to being attracted to some clever sound bite-based, cult of personality that got a horror like Boris Johnstone elected in the UK, much of 'the red wall, turning blue.' Party politics is toxic in todays 'sound bite,' internet based political cult of personality, realpolitik.
Quoting Michael
It would require a countrywide political movement. I think an independent Scotland is a good candidate for such a change as the ruling party (SNP) would have to reinvent itself anyway, after independence.
Out of little acorns, big oak trees grow! I live in hope (not a forlorn hope imo.) that if enough people share my view that we need to get rid of party politics (It's a view held by a significant number of people.)
and if they say so and write so, whenever they/we can. Then I hope we can convince others and turn the idea into a movement for such change. Groups for progressive politics such as 'COMPASS' in the UK, may be a conduit. These are groups, interested in progressive politics rather that party politics and they could be a way forward. Getting the balance correct is crucial. I don't want a future government made up of independents that are all members (or a majority are members) of a group such as COMPASS.
So, I would suggest some 'cap' on how many members of 'particular groups' can stand as independent candidates for governance.
If a person agrees that party politics, produces too many governments, which run a country based on the interests of the party, much more than the interests of the people, then they should consider alternative systems which removes party politics from governance. I don't agree we can simply remove the rosettes and party ID from the ballot papers. I would replace political parties with a national political structure.
Everyone interested in politics can join this single group. Every area would have local branches. This is where all independent candidates would come from. I can go into the details of how I think this national institution would function at a local level, if you want me to.
Yes, I accept, you are in fact in reality, the opposite of what your chosen handle suggests. (Hence my use of 'Ironic.') I don't think it was a wise choice for an internet discussion forum. People make assumptions based on your chosen identifier and you are then left with the choice to dispell the assumption that you are bitter and cranky (as you are choosing to do right now) or decide to 'not care' about the assumptions of others. I do care about such incorrect assumptions, so I don't invite them unnecessarily, by using an ill-chosen handle.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I do get it, I still don't like it, but I have no choice but to accept your 'too bad' :smile:
Thanks for your description of the remit of the US civil service .
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree that a free press is essential to any democratic governance system. I accept your opinion that getting rid of governance based on an elected political party majority or by coalition is absurd. My only response to your opinion is to accept that the burden lies with me, and those who agree with me, that it can be done, and that governance via elected independents, would benefit the human race far more than current governance based on an elected political party. I hope for a future, where example nations can be pointed to combat your current opinion. Neither of us are likely to be around at the time but, hey ho, who knows.
Btw, even in our current party-political system in the UK, you can stand as an independent.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think politics exists because people see the wisdom of living and working as a collective, driven by common cause. It's ruined due to the existence of a powerful, well established dynastic history of a nefarious few and the residue of such horrors as religion and the divine right of kings/messiahs/aristocracies/plutocracies etc to rule or govern. I certainly don't advocate for denying politics exist. Your quote above, 'concentrates' on those in politics who are nefarious. It just seems that everyone in politics is nefarious. But that is actually not true, at all! Do you accept that? or do you really think every politician is nefarious?
I accept that. No, I do not think most politicians are nefarious. Many politicians are well-motivated, with the intention to perform good public service.
That said, economic interests modify what "good public service" means. The United States is a big country with 300,000,000+ people. It is easier to judge politicians on a state and local level than the national level. That's probably true in the UK, too.
As for bitter crankery, it is just a handle, not a summation. It could be ishkabibble just as easily. Or universeness.
I say this to make Democrats sad, by telling them that the reason they won the mid-terms is because the Republicans don't care because they didn't matter. They already won something much bigger.
Congress still makes the laws, though
I agree and I think it's such local level judgement that can best bring them down if they do prove to be nefarious. This is why I want to remove the current 'party protections' they have.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Now Ishkabibble would be at least comedic. Pistols at dawn if you try to steal my handle! :lol:
How about NotaBitterCrank?
My sense of U.S. politics is it's kind of like WWE where your guy taking a beating / the other guy winning is always very painful. This is borne out by my (limited) experience on U.S. politics forums, which are dominated by "Fuck you, we're gonna kick your ass" type posturing, likely supercharged in recent years by Trumpism. Also, from a practical viewpoint, with the Senate in his hands, Biden can continue to nominate Dem judges to the lower courts and pretty much ignore the House which, with a wafer thin majority, will mostly consist of Republican factions eating each other alive and nothing getting done. That's a big win for Dems. So, maybe at the margins wavering Republicans may have not bothered voting out of complacency, but wouldn't the type that care a lot about having a red Supreme Court also probably be team players that are going to vote pro-red / anti-blue every chance they get both to get the boot into the other side and due to hot-button issues like abortion etc? Like, if you're cheering that abortion rights have been curtailed by the SC, you really don't want a pro-choicer representing you at local level, correct?
All's this to say that imo the election result wasn't so much about your average Republican or Dem voters but independents who were put off by the raft of shitty Republican candidates Trump successfully pushed for and thought the Dems the lesser of two evils, i.e. moderates that would normally lean Republican in mid-terms set against a backdrop of serious economic uncertainty and an unpopular President but were given reason not to this time. And if that's the case, the absolute last red ticket you want is Orange Man redux, especially seeing as for some unfathomable reason, the equally awful De Santis seems acceptable to most Americans and would probably have an excellent chance against sleepy Joe (who seems intent on ignoring his curtain call). So, the danger here is you hand Biden a second term and the House back to the Dems without them having to do anything but sit back and watch Trump implode. Maybe a really bad recession saves you, but that's your only Hail Mary.
Are you sad yet? I'm really trying to make you sad here... :halo:
I think the win for Trump here is that with a Republican majority in the House, the investigative committee against him will be disbanded and then they can go about the important business of investigating Hunter Biden's computer or some such shit.
Trump rules from fear, which he uses only against his own party to keep them from challenging him, leaving a bunch of battered opponents waiting for the chance to destroy him once he's been weakened, which seems to be about now.
I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that.
Leaving that aside, the guy seems to be a scumbag from just about every angle. If you do vote for him, for the love of Yahweh at least have the decency to lie about it afterwards.
Yes, a form of demonstrated honesty about the nature of politics. I wonder how many ex-professional athletes have served in congress in the last few years? Walker is from my alma mater. :sad:
:lol:
Herschel was a hell of a running back, which usually translates into an equally amazing upper legislative chamber member.
BTW them Dawgs is #1 right now, probably will win the national title. Coinkidink? I think not.
I get what you're talking about. It would be a shame not to recognize such an accomplishment. There is something profound, sublime, in the shamelessness.
A long line of Hanovers went to UGA. One's now in Colorado. Son, is that you?
Not me, dad. I flew off the campus into the USAF back in 1958, when your daddy was in diapers. :smile:
Now I know where I inherited my pervyness.
Is that a question? I hope he wasn't. But he could be now, being about my age!
But he'd rather be a werewolf than a vampire, and everyone knows that werewolves are lame.
So, in the video Herp-a-durp stepped on another dude's head and that counts `as a score, I get it. As for the connection to politics, is this how you decide which laws get passed in 'Murica? Party members step on each other's heads and those with the least brain damage get to make the laws? ...Plausible.
And an enthusiastic cocaine and meth user who is for harsher jail terms.
Well, Canada had a mayor who indulged in crack....
Nevertheless, onto the thread here, it is a tribute to Republican fanaticism that they could not pick up a single senate sit. Not that this makes it a ride for Biden, given Sinema and Manchin - those two are Republicans too.
But these right wingers fucked up with the abortion issue and not wanting to consider student loan forgiveness and on and on.
Sadly, no change in FP from either party, which is alarming given how many dangerous conflicts are waiting for a spark.
Now you've put me on a mission to find a crazy Irish politician so I can retaliate and divert. Let me get to Googling and I'll be back in a few.
You mean this guy on the right.
I know nothing of him, but he's said to be a bit nuts, so I'd vote for him assuming he can run with a football.
Karl Marx's Irish Grandson. Not sure about football but he can belt a sliotar from one end of the pitch to the other.
Is that no jist oor big yin (Billy Connolly, withoot his specs!), huvvin a wee laff wi you yankie doodles by posing as a polly tician?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/757431
2022 midterm election results (Federal)
U.S. House (D) Dems -10 seats
U.S. Senate (D) Dems +1 seat
NB: Since 1934, the average midterm results by first term President's party is -25 House seats and -1 Senate seat.
[quote=US Senator Raphael Warnock (D-Ga), re-elected 12.06.22]The People have spoken.[/quote]
:clap: Thanks, Georgia!
:yikes: :scream:
[quote=MAGA Clown Sean Hannity, 03Jan23] House Republicans are [s]on the verge of becoming[/s] a total clown show.[/quote]
:rofl:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/04/live-updates-kevin-mccarthy-speaker-of-the-house-vote/10985244002/
Either Dems Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries D-NY or ... "Individual-1" (aka "Defendent-1") as next Speaker of the House of Representatives??? :brow:
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/03/house-speaker-election-congress-mccarthy-1856
I look at it a little different. I think thats what they CLAIM. But I think a more accurate picture is that people like Gaetz and Boebert want to make a show of things, this way they can claim to be disruptors. I imagine theyll work something out eventually how long they manage to keep this up, who knows. Eventually the pressure will be too great. You even have Trump and Greene coming out against them.
If only they had real visions and values.
If these kinds of people cause a US debt default, then it's brush up your survival skills and buy lots of tinned supplies well in advance, because the resulting economic disruption will make The Great Depression seem like a picnic. And they're willing to do it! Some of them at least believe they are doing God's work.
:up: "Two gun Boebert" represents my district, winning over a Democrat by a very narrow margin. I agree with your assessment. She is the far-rights' AOC.
Quoting Wayfarer
Won't happen, but it is scary.
From the same column:
Quoting 180 Proof
My 2 bit(coin)s are on a half dozen GOP members-elect making a deal with the Dems and voting for Jeffries within a week unless McCarthy gives up (and probably resigns from Congress in disgrace) allowing the GOP caucus to vote in a powerless stooge as Speaker.
Caveat: "Individual-1" is improbable (becoming less so with each day that passes without a resolution) but not impossible.
The Republicans are infighting for power, trying to portray it is ideological, but it's far from consistent.
McCarthy, it is argued, is an old school lobbyist controlled Republican who the newer right (Trump like) Republicans don't like because they want to "drain the swamp," meaning clear out the old guard power structure.
There are at least 5 Republicans (supposedly far right) who have declared they'll never vote for McCarthy. There are 20 or so who said they'll always vote for him.
Here's where it stops making sense entirely. Marjorie Green is a hard core Trumpian, yet she is heavily aligned with McCarthy. Boebert has moved away from Trump after winning by only 1000 or so votes last election, but she's aligned with the never McCarthy group. Trump himself supports McCarthy. Gaetz is a never McCarthy person and he nominated Trump for speaker and then cast the single vote for him.
So, while they pretend it's about ideology, they're really just supporting the person who will give them the best committee assignments and that's what they're making deals over right now.
They will never cede power to the Democrats or align themselves with them. They're just selfishly taking advantage of the power vacuum and trying to fill it.
Can you explain to me how any legislation is ever going to get passed seeing as anything the HFC don't want to veto will never get through the Democratic senate?
As in what is even the point of being speaker if you guarantee your own legislative impotence?
Theres nothing to explain. Legislation simply wont be passed the next two years beyond the most necessary bills, and even then not without some brinksmanship.
Anytime you have divided chambers, you have a certain amount of gridlock, and that gridlock has progressively grown over the years with increased polarization. It's especially a problem where the margins of control are so minimal, so that you can have a group of 5 or so radicals who can hold their entire party hostage unless concessions are given. You saw something similar in the Senate where the Democrats had a 50/50 split, with the tie being decided by the Democrat VP, so Democrat Manchin seized complete power by not voting lock step and making himself the deciding swing vote.
Where I do think there is strong Republican alignment is over their disdain for the Democrats, meaning this will not result in increased harmonization where the parties actually start working together so that moderate factions can gain power through consolidation. That would expect a very Parliament type reaction from the American sharply divided system. Diverse groups do not pool their resources under the American system to increase their power. They fight until their mutual death like God intended.
The American system, IMHO, is designed by intent toward maintaining a status quo, especially in times of political discord, restraining the government from instituting significant change when there is disagreement. Handicapping the government is intentional because it is generally distrusted, as it was created by a bunch of rebels who thought government was inherently tyrannical. Your ancestors know that well, having been left behind with the tyrannical British for all those additional years. Damn those bastards!
What we're seeing is the system functioning as expected, and it's really (I'm hoping) the final fallout of the Trump years, where the party divided into two groups, one the traditional Republicans and the other Trump Republicans, where the traditional ones had to hold their breath until Trump went away. Trump's vindictiveness for lack of loyalty by attacking members of his own party and subjecting them to primaries destroyed the cohesiveness and makes this break today in the House not that unusual. You have a good number of Republicans (who seem to be symbolized by McCarthy) who are ready to take the party back to where it was prior to Trump and this is hopefully the beginning of that, with fuckheads trying to stop it.
The winners from the infighting and division are obviously the Democrats, who stopped the red wave from happening with a pretty lackluster and unpopular President. I'm rooting for the Democrats to make some real gains during this so that the Republican party can implode and erect as something not so stupid. The only platform I can decipher that the Republicans have at this point is that they want to investigate Hunter Biden. That's super duper important apparently. As if to be a Republican means you like investigations so we can know shit, fuck legislating over anything else. Even Desantis, the great Trump expected replacement, announces he wants to investigate Fauci. Can they just fucking stop? If I learn in 3 years I wore a mask I didn't really need to wear, I guess I'll be really proud to have been a Republican to now know that.
Dr Fau..ci <>Dr Fau..stus. I suppose you think there's nothing to see there...
I don't believe in coincidences in our perfectly constructed universe.
Well, I edited it to spoil your reply, so I did something worthwhile today...
Matt Gaetz is a fraud. Every time he voted against Kevin McCarthy last week he sent out a fundraising email, Mace said on CBSs Face The Nation with Margaret Brennan. What you saw last week was a constitutional process diminished by those kinds of political actions.[/quote]